This paper demonstrates that a meta-analysis technique applied to the Solomon Four-Group Design (SFGD) can fail to find significance even though an earlier "weaker" test may have found significance. The meta-analysis technique was promoted by Braver and Braver as the most powerful single test for analyzing data from an SFGD. They demonstrated that customary analysis on fabricated data sometimes failed to find significance, while meta-analysis found significance. The current paper counters that meta-analysis is a five-step process, and that fabricated data sets can easily be constructed to show that customary tests can find significance, whereas meta-analysis does not. Statements about the efficacy and power of meta-analysis should be made more cautiously. (TJH)